Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Runix

  1. Previous Conspiracy formats were generally of two types: "If you win this story, then [something happens]", or "All your characters committed to this story gain [icon or ability]". The problem with the first format, of course, was that you weren't guaranteed to win the story. The payout for putting it into play was too far off and too uncertain to make it worthwhile. The problem with the second type is that it really only benefited one strategy: flooding. Hence, they just didn't have a place in a lot of decks. I think with the latest expansion packs, FFG has figured out a Conspiracy format that works. Other Conspiracies that saw use tended to be those with an immediate and dramatic game effect, or which completely upended the icon struggles: specifically, Perambulans and (less frequently) Unorthodox Tactics. But the recent expansion saw two cards that completely change the story struggle, and hence are much more tempting to include. As such, I do think we will see both more Conspiracies and more ways to use them. Also, another ST character with a Conspiracy related ability is good news; it may mean we will get a ST Conspiracy card yet.
  2. I could see them reissuing on box format, but I would imagine that that would be a certain amount of work. It may be easier to just use the existing design for the monthly packs and add in a few fixes and updates.
  3. My guess is that the practice tournament has a registered deck like the main tournament, but that you can use separate decks for each. Just a guess, but that's what would make sense to me.
  4. In looking at the preview of the upcoming expansion, it looks like Miskatonic will definitely be getting some help. This is really going to super-charge my Cthulhu/Miskatonic deck! OK, just kidding. But seriously, it's interesting to consider why the "monster" factions have long dominated over the "human" factions. The answer used to be that the humans were short on Terror and protection against it. That just isn't the case any more as humans now have a lot of answers to terror, and yet the monsters are still dominant. I am coming to think that the answer has more to do with cost efficiency. As I mentioned in another thread, the value of a card is radically different based on cost, with cost 1 and 2 cards being far more useful than cost 4+ cards. The reason for that has to do with domain resource distribution; players tend to have a primary domain (3+ resources) and two or three secondary domains (1 or 2 resources). Anything with cost 4+ is going to compete with that primary domain, while anything 1 or 2 cost can be paid for with one of the secondary domains. Cost 4+ cards will naturally see much less play, and will compete with each other for the one primary domain, while cost 1 and 2 cards will see far more play. In reviewing decks submitted by some of the best players, they have something in common: they are heavily skewed toward low-cost cards, with half or more of the deck at cost 2 or less. That also helps illustrate the enormous popularity of the Khopesh, Master of the Myths, Dreamlands Fanatic, etc.: they all come in at less than the magic cost 2 barrier. All that said, I think the main issue with Miskatonic at this point is: they don't have enough good characters at or below the 2 cost limit. They actually have some fantastic characters that can handle a wide variety of situations - and they're cost 4 or more, with only a few exceptions. I realize that the designers have been cautious about giving Misk and the Agency too many solid cheap characters because Misk or Agency flood decks used to be a thing way back in the day, but that hasn't been the case for quite some time now. Put another way: the Faculty are great but too expensive, the Students are cheap but too weak. As such, I'm a little cautious about Seekers of Knowledge. A couple of the cards they've revealed are showing good synergy with other Miskatonic characters, which is great. But if the expansion is just more cost 4 characters that will never see play and throwaway cost 1 characters that get knocked out before doing anything of substance, it won't materially change the monster/human metagame.
  5. BGG is definitely the best place to post files; I think BGG also indexes to search engines better than the forums here do.
  6. I've been kicking around the idea of going, but not sure if my schedule will allow it. On the announcement page, it mentions working with the designers to design a card for both the National Championship and the World Championship. My question: if a National Champion helps design a card, how does it work with the Hall of Champions?
  7. I'm not as concerned about it - particularly since they've been so actively reprinting earlier expansion packs. Given that Dreamlands is eligible for a reprint, I can certainly understand them wanting to slow the tide of new cards. At some point, the game needs new players, and honestly, you don't want new players to look at a mountain of expansions and think they can never catch up with that. Larger but less frequent expansion packs, particularly that focus on certain factions, are better for new players getting up to speed. Look at the typical conversation here in the forums. New player: I'd like to get started, where do I start? Veterans: another Core Set and Secrets of Arkham. That feels accessible. What new players don't want to hear is: another Core Set and three copies of each of the last dozen expansion packs (an answer you certainly could have received a couple of years ago). I think FFG is leaning toward a model where players can buy a Core Set or two and an expansion focused on their favorite faction. That makes it much more accessible for new players (even as they know the veterans will pick up everything).
  8. I agree, I think this will be a good change. From a purely marketing perspective, this cuts down on the growth of SKUs, which I'm sure many game stores have been complaining about. I know a couple of game stores in the area that only carry core sets because they don't want shelves cluttered with small expansion packs. For Lord of the Rings, the individual packs make sense, as each comes packaged with a quest - although there are some indications that they are leaning away from the monthly packs there, with the release of the storyline expansions. I don't really follow A Game of Thrones, so can't comment there; but Warhammer:Invasion is frankly a bit of a mess, with erratic card distributions (particularly in the Core Set and the elf expansion), and no plans for reprints. Would be nice to see some more attention to WH:I, but this isn't the forum for that.
  9. .Zephyr. said: And there are really not that many cards that can get rid of it directly (missed any?) : . . . What analysis shows this is not worth it? Are other restricted cards just better? You missed Thief for Hire, which is very effective for not just taking the Khopesh out, but for making a very resilient and dangerous Thief. Beyond that, any targeted character removal, or untargeted character removal if the Khopesh-wielder is the only one out, will work. Lord Jeffery Farrington works like a charm, for instance. I generally agree, however, that by and large the Khopesh is worth it; the only real question is if it is more worthwhile than other restricted cards. Versus unrestricted cards, depends on the deck, but in many decks, it's almost an auto-include. The main problem with it, I think, is the cost. Cost 1 and 2 cards are potentially very powerful, because they can be cast on a secondary domain rather than the primary domain. Once a card hits cost 3, it forces difficult decisions regarding whether or not to drain the primary domain (3-3-1 domain setups can happen I suppose, just not that frequently). As such, a lot of decks are built around having almost nothing but cost 1 and 2 cards, and in that light, Khopesh is enormously powerful, as it delivers a lot of firepower while staying at the magic cost 2 limit. Bumping its cost up to 3 would have balanced it, I think.
  10. I agree with the two posters above me. The common-sense reading of "Each player (does something), if able. Then, each player (does something else)" would be that each player individually attempts to do the first thing, then whether or not they are successful, each player then attempts to do the second thing. That that interpretation may be wrong on both counts is a serious problem with wording conventions. I realize the designers may not like it, but to avoid problems like this going forward, they are going to need to include more words. Without devolving into literal computer code, it's just going to be too difficult to interpret unless it's very clear what is intended. That, or simply avoid complex effects altogether. If this card was intended to only trigger if all players have two or more cards in hand available for discard, it should have been worded that way. E.g., "If all players have two or more cards in hand, each player chooses and discards two cards; then, each player draws a card." That's perfectly clear and at a cost of not too many additional words. I really hope we're way off on this and that the card actually works the way it appears to say it works. But given previously rulings, I'm not at all confident that that's the case.
  11. Carioz said: Sorry if I cut most of the post but let me ask directly: "How does playing a Master of the Myths directly improve your board position?" I can answer that: Master of the Myths improves your board position by preventing unopposed story wins. Placing success tokens on stories is a big deal as it relates directly to the victory conditions, and Master of the Myths is one of the best cards in the game for preventing your opponent from doing it. Between success tokens on stories and characters in play, it's success tokens on stories that wins you the game. I have to say, it pains me to say that this card is a problem, because I definitely favor Silver Twilight, and think it really works well with the ST theme. But: this card is a problem. By your own calculations, 66% of winning decks have it. What other card do 66% of winning decks have? It's the Delver of Secrets of the current CoC meta. If any given card is showing up in over half of winning decks, it's a problem card. And just like Delver, it's not that it's way too powerful - it's that it's way too cheap. It's a solid card, but at a dirt-cheap fire-sale cost. That's the problem. It's just way too good for what you're paying for it. It's a very good surprise blocker that is immune to insanity and resistant to damage, and which can ready another character while limiting or even preventing enemy progress on a story - and at a cost of one colorless resource. At a cost of two resources, it would still be a great card. At a cost of one ST resource, it would probably be OK. At a cost of one colorless resource but with a condition match - e.g., an action has been triggered - it would be fine. But at one colorless resource with no match and no other trigger, it's just way too cheap. I repeat my previous thought on this: if Guardian Pillar is on the restricted list, no way this card stays off it. I don't know what they were thinking when they made what is, in effect, another Guardian Pillar after the first one caused so much trouble. Along the same lines, let me say that many of the cards on the restricted list are more or less the same: cards that are not fundamentally problematic, they're just too cheap. Diseased Sewer Rats would have been OK at cost 3; Khopesh of the Abyss would have been fine at cost 3 (or arguably even cost 4); Guardian Pillar at a cost 4 (or 5); etc.
  12. COCLCG said: i most humbly present my latest version of the HAVOC deck that includes protection versus all the card pinching and hastur control popularity. OK, interesting. Sentinel Hill is an interesting choice; will help deal with Fences and a few other cards. One concern, although a minor one, would be the Lurking Deep One; without a Night card, you're just not getting the full utility of that.
  13. ssjevot said: Is the Magah Bird also fixable with errata? I really think it could get away with being restricted. Compared to some other cards on the list it doesn't seem that broken. As I understand it, the main issue with the Magah Bird was that it was part of a strategy based on very rapid deployment of characters to quickly win a story, then getting out The Seventy Steps to slow down the other player and going on to win the game. I don't think Magah Bird was a problem on its own; it was in combination with The Seventy Steps and other super-fast characters like (the old) Aspiring Artist and Sewer Rats that it was a problem. Since those other cards have either been errata'd or restricted, I'm not sure it's as much of a threat any more. Also, a lot of decks now have plenty of destruction and removal. I personally don't think it would be a problem to move it from banned to restricted.
  14. Hellfury said: Well, it turns out it is not as good as I had originally thought it would work. Feral Elder Thing Card Type: Character Cost: 3 Skill: 3 2 Terror Icons, 1 Combat Icon Subtype: Monster, Independent At the beginning of your turn, each player chooses and discards 2 cards from his hand, if able. Then, each player draws 1 card. Each player must have at least 2 cards in their hand in order for the effect to work. So if either player has less than 2 cards in their hand, then neither player chooses 2 cards, discards them then draws 1. This one kind of boggled me, but when I was playing Steve Horvath tonight Event Center, Damon hung out for awhile and explained it as such. Still a great card, but not quite as great as I had originally understood it since your opponent can foil it by having less than 2 cards in hand.. This makes absolutely no sense. The definition of "each" (sorry to get lawyer-ly here, but I think it's appropriate) is "every one of two or more considered individually or one by one". That means that every player should be considered individually, that is, the effect should succeed or fail individually, not collectively. I see nothing in the FAQ changing the definition of "each", and no examples that would imply anything different than the commonly accepted meaning of the word.. Put another way: if this is how it is supposed to be worded if effects succeed or fail collectively across all players or targets, then how would it be worded if the effect was intended to succeed or fail individually?
  15. While I am shamelessly submitting requests, it would be nice to have some storage boxes for LCG cards that fit into the existing LCG boxes. Other card storage boxes (the thick white cardboard ones that most game stores sell) do not fit well within the boxes, as they're too bulky. Right now I am using some makeshift contraptions made up of the inserts that come with the LCGs, cut up and taped back together - very crude, but they work. I'd be willing to buy something that just drops down into the box and can hold a whole lot of cards.
  16. I love the art sleeves, but as the title says, it would be nice to have 60 count art sleeves rather than the current 50 count. That's particularly the case for Lord of the Rings, where you have three Heroes in addition to a 50-count deck. Other game companies are shipping art sleeves in 60 count or 80 count or even 100 count packs; 80 or 100 is overkill, but I would be much more inclined to buy more art sleeves if they were 60 count, even if they were a touch more expensive.
  17. You can't have Mao, they went to the trouble of building a nice tomb for him and they spend a lot of effort in keeping him preserved. (Reads original post) Whoops, never mind.
  18. Likewise, pleased to see the "tarot" size. I was a bit reluctant to put too much time into Elder Sign for fear of wearing out the cards, now not a worry.
  19. I can't be the only one who opened this thread and was disappointed to find no mention of Henry VIII. But anyway, the "green" sleeves appear to be 56 x 87 mm, and there are other companies who supply sleeves in similar sizes. I am all for buying FFG supplies, but if they are out, a quick search on Amazon for game card sleeves should reveal some products from other manufacturers that are very close in size. If you are insistent on only FFG supplies, eBay would be your best bet for anything out of supply here.
  20. ssjevot said: Also does anyone else find it weird how many Elder Things we have, but they aren't their own subtype? Not as weird as the fact that there are two Silver Twilight characters who aren't Silver Twilight, or that the Serpent from Yoth isn't a Serpent!
  21. Regarding the O.E.S. Ring, I just looked that up - as stated in the FAQ, Official Rules Clarifications 1.7, effects last until the end of the phase unless otherwise specified, excepting "put into play", "remove from play", and "take control" effects. Most of the cards that are similar specify "until the end of the phase", so that would make sense. I suspect they intended to include that clarification, but forgot, but it's not the end of the world, as it's in the FAQ. I am not a lawyer, but I do occasionally play one on the internet. As for Jenica Capra, I think that has to be a mistake, as otherwise you could cycle through your entire deck, pick out all the attachments, and know exactly what order your cards will be in. I have to think that that will be errata'd to "(Limit once per turn.)" in very short order.
  22. One particular design of card that I am taking an interest in is what I call, for lack of a better term, the "packrat" card. Basically, a "packrat" card is a card that lets the player collect cards from the other player, typically after they leave play. I would distinguish it from a "mind control" card that lets the player take control of another player's character (ex.: Stygian Eye), or a "thief" card that lets the player take control of another player's attachment (ex.: Thief for Hire), although they generally have the same effect: taking control of cards in some way. Each of the packrat cards has a nominal advantage that they confer, but one major secondary advantage is in shutting down recursion, which is becoming a major factor in the metagame. The other player can't fish a card out of the discard pile if it's sitting in your Trophy Room. And unlike the mind control and thief cards, the packrats can hoard a potentially unlimited supply of cards, which is sure to annoy the other player. While I don't think they are "include in every deck" powerful, I do think they're potentially useful under the right circumstances. The main difficulty, that I can see, is that they typically trigger when cards are removed from play - most often, when characters are destroyed. When you're behind in the game, just getting that trigger can be a difficulty. As such, they're not as good for turning around a bad situation as they are for staying in control. Even so, I like the idea of them and am interested in figuring out ways to work them into decks. The "packrat" cards, as I count them, are: Specimen Bags (Syn, AtMoM) - potentially quite useful, especially for shutting down the "bouncing" metagame. Take out one Initiate of Huang Hun and attach it to it, and that's the last you'll see of them for a while. Trophy Room (Syn, MoE) - not as impressed with this one. Marginally easier to defend, as it's not attached to a character like Specimen Bags. Specimen Room (Shub, MoE) - as with Trophy Room, and mainly for Mi-go decks. Feasting Ghouls (Shub, TWB) - more expensive than the others, but the ability to actively select characters from the other discard pile is great, meaning you could potentially use the Ghouls to steadily mop up the other side's discard pile. Canopic Jar (Yog, TSS) - I really like this one, as it not only nicks the other side's characters, but lets you use their abilities as well. Fence (Syn, LR, just released) - I also really like this one; it not only nicks the other side's attachments before they leave play (meaning they can't go to the discard pile to trigger "after leaves play" effects), but they give the enterprising Fence the ability to use them right away, because, you know, they're attachments. One rules question: Canopic Jar states that the character should be attached to it, but not as a blank attachment the way some of the others specify. Does that mean that passive effects on the attached character cards are in effect? For instance, if the Canopic Jar attaches the Jade Salesman, is the increased cost for attachments still in effect? And one final comment: would be really nice to have a packrat card for events. Snitching the other side's events and keeping them bottled up could really wreak havoc on a number of the control decks that are currently very competitive.
  23. To reply to the original post, a good starting point would be a set time for getting together to play Lackey or Octagon. Both clients aren't the ideal way to play, but they're good enough for playing out decks against a variety of opponents as a preparation for real face-to-face play. If we could designate a day and a time to be available on Lackey, I would be up for it depending on my schedule.
  24. Hellfury said: It would be great to have an online play mechanism. But FFG are not likely to make one, IMO. I used to play a lot of M:tG and my online (MTGO) collection nearly rivaled my IRL collection. Online is a great way to play and about the only way that WotC can afford to make such a wonderful program is due to the addictive blind buy quality that they charge for an electronic pack of cards. It wouldn't be as profitable as the physical product for FFG. Because it is a new set up that would have to be constantly maintained to sort bugs out. FFG would never recognize Lackey/OCTGN officially to be used as such tournament as they seem to only tolerate it. No offense to the creators of those, but the interface on those programs are quite poor. I wouldn't want those representing my products either if I were FFG. Not trying to be a debbie downer about it, just realistic. This is a rare case where it would be in everybody's best interest for the companies involved to pool their resources and invest in a common client that would allow participating companies a secure way of rolling out digital versions of their games. Wizards, obviously, has such a thing, but it's woefully deficient (ugly and clunky, though not as bad as the freeware clients), but even they could potentially benefit by sharing costs with other companies like FFG that could use a digital platform. A common client would cut costs and ease deployment of digital CCGs/LCGs, while making it easier for players to maintain multiple games, so it could potentially be a win for everyone. I have no illusions about how difficult it would be to convince game company executives to invest in such a thing - but there are some independent developers working on full-featured platforms that could possibly be marketed to the companies as a low-risk way of rolling out digital games. But companies in an industry joining together to invest in a common format has been done before, and to great success - e.g., the DVD format, which was developed by a consortium of tech companies.
  25. dboeren said: I have mixed feelings about this card precisely BECAUSE it works so well with Khopesh, and Shub was already a favored faction to pair up with the Khopesh anyway. We'll have to see how it works out, but I hope this doesn't trigger a new wave of Khopesh + Spore decks. I don't think so, at least not at the tournament level. I suspect that most tournament decks by now have a lot of direct character removal and a lot of support removal, so either way they should be able to deal with it. I suppose I can see Khopesh-wielding Guardian Shoggoths with an attached Spore wreaking havoc in casual play, though.
  • Create New...